Raphael and Jesus

by peacefulpete 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hooberus

  Narkissos said:
  

  It's amazing to me that those who admit that "firstborn of the creation" means a transcendantal status in relation with every creature do not realize that "first-born of the dead" means exactly the same thing in relation to the resurrected dead.

  The Bibles that I have checked so far translate Colossians 1:15 differently than Colossians 1:18. For example the NKJV: "the firstborn over all creation" (verse 15)- "the firstborn from the dead" (verse 18). While they generally seem to translate verse 15 as "firstborn from the dead", none that I have seen translates Colossians 1:15 similarily as "firstborn from the creation." Thus, I would probably guess that different greek words and/or word structure is used in these two verses.
• 

  Narkissos

  Hooberus:

  You're right as to the construction in Colossians. V. 15 is prôtotokos pasès ktiseôs, "firstborn of all creation" ("over" is slightly over... interpretative imo); v. 18 is prôtotokos ek tôn nekrôn, "firstborn from the dead". However, the simple genitive prôtotokos tôn nekrôn which strictly parallels Colossians 1:15 occurs in Revelation 1:5.

  It seems pretty obvious to me that the two titles were understood as structurally parallel in early Christianity, so that the transcendental, or qualitatively superior status of prôtotokos is to work both ways. Ask any Christian theologian if the resurrection of Jesus-Christ is just another occurrence of the general (even final) resurrection of the dead -- OK, the first in time, but nothing else. By insisting on Jesus' bodily resurrection (I mean, as an individual body and not as Christ's body which is the Church), orthodox Christian apologetes fail to see the qualitative difference in prôtotokos -- exactly what they blame on JW apologetes re: creation.
• 

  Leolaia

  A farmer does not sow a mature wheat plant (what bare seed eventually is to become), but wheat seed. However there is a continuity, the same wheat seed that is sown (after it seems to die in the ground) comes to life as a wheat plant. The "it" that is sown is the "it" that is raised. What is sown is the body, thus the "it" that is raised must also be the body.

  Yes, I agree completely with this....this is the exact point I was making in the "Michael the Archangel" thread, for the Society denies any such continuity between the original body and that which is resurrected. The real question is what kind of body is a sóma pneumatikon (v. 44)? It isn't a body composed of sarx and haima (v. 50; cf. v. 39, where sarx is used of earthly creatures), whereas the "heavenly beings" (epouranión), while not having sarx, do have sómata "bodies" (v. 40). Cf. Ignatius (Smyrnaeans 6:1) where epourania "heavenly beings" include angels and arkhontes "rulers". Considering Paul's dualism between sarx and pneuma (cf. Romans 8:6, 1 Corinthians 3:1 for instance), it would appear that a soma pneumatikon would not be composed of sarx but pneuma; as the sarx would be "changed" (v. 51) into something new. This is the rub between Paul and the anti-docetic fathers. Thus Ignatius (Smyrnaeans 3:1) says "I know and believe that he was in the flesh (en sarki) even after the resurrection," and cited the corporeal ephipany in which Jesus showed his crucifixion wounds as proof of this, with Jesus' disciples being "closely united with his flesh and blood (té sarki kai tó haimati)." This is a striking contrast to 1 Corinthians 15:50. He also cited the post-resurrection meal scenes which showed that "he ate and drank with them like one who is composed of flesh (sarkikos)" (v. 3). Another difference between Ignatius and Paul is that Paul conceived of a pneumatic body without sarx, whereas Ignatius characterized the docetic view that Jesus did not have flesh as claiming him to be asómatois "disembodied" or "without a body" (2:1). Since Paul claimed that the epourania have bodies (1 Corinthians 15:40), and since they are paralleled with the soma pneumatikon in contrast with earthly bodies, it would appear that for Paul the resurrected Jesus had a soma pneumatikon like the heavenly beings.

  The word "spiritual" in Chapter 2 does not seem to mean "spirit" (as in spirit creature), but instead seems to mean one led by and empowered by the spirit of God. This same meaning can be appplied to 1 Corinthians 15:44.

  No, because ch. 15 explicitly discusses kinds of bodies (cf. allos "other," heteros "different," diapherei "differing," in v. 39-41). In ch. 2, Paul may be speaking of "spiritual man" in terms of fellowship with the Spirit instead of one's intrinsic nature, but in ch. 15 the resurrected "spiritual body" is meant to contrast with the kind of body that is characterized by sarx.

  Unlike your above quote, the Bibles that I have checked so far translate Colossians 1:15 differently than Colossians 1:18. For example the NKJV: "the firstborn over all creation" (verse 15)- "the firstborn from the dead" (verse 18). While they generally seem to translate verse 15 as "firstborn from the dead", none that I have seen translates Colossians 1:15 as "firstborn from the creation"

  We just had a lengthy discussion of this very point in the "NWT" thread....
• 

  Narkissos

  Another difference between Ignatius and Paul is that Paul conceived of a pneumatic body without sarx, whereas Ignatius characterized the docetic view that Jesus did not have flesh as claiming him to be asómatois "disembodied" or "without a body" (2:1). Since Paul claimed that the epourania have bodies (1 Corinthians 15:40), and since they are paralleled with the soma pneumatikon in contrast with earthly bodies, it would appear that for Paul the resurrected Jesus had a soma pneumatikon like the heavenly beings.

  That could be a logical conclusion, but Paul interestingly refrains from drawing it. My suggestion is that he would not ascribe an individual sôma pneumatikon to Christ somewhere in heaven because he needs Christ's archetypal sôma pneumatikon for his mystery-like religion here on earth (Romans 12:5f; 1 Corinthians 6:15ff; 10:16f; 11:24ff; 12:12ff). Again, I feel this is possible because "Christ Jesus" is not first thought of as a bodily man in need of a personal bodily resurrection after death but as the heavenly Son of God coming from heaven in the first place, assuming the human form, cheating the archontes by suffering death (1 Corinthians 2:8), then revealing his true identity by raising from the dead (Romans 1:3f). The whole process is viewed as salvific, and the central concept is, precisely, the one and only mystical sôma: the body of Christ's descent, death and ascent is the one Christians are made a part of by baptism and the Eucharist (where the body is to be discerned, 1 Corinthians 11:29).
• 

  Leolaia

  Back to Raphael, check out his words in Tobit 12:

  "Do not be afraid (mé phobeisthe); peace be with you (eisthe eiréné humin estai). Bless God forever. As far as I was concerned, when I was with you, my presence was not by any decision of mine, but by the will of God; it is he whom you must bless throughout your days, he that you must praise. You thought you saw me eating, but that was appearance and no more. Now bless the Lord on earth and give thanks to God. I am about to return to him above who sent me (dioti anabainó pros ton aposteilanta me). Write down all that has happened" (Tobit 12:17-20).

  And compare with the words and actions of the resurrected Jesus and his angel heralds:

  "The angel said to the women: 'Do not be afraid (mé phobeisthe humeis), for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.' ... Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid (mé phobeisthe). Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.' " (Matthew 28:5, 10)

  "Again Jesus said, 'Peace be with you (eiréné humin)! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.' ...A week later his disciples were in the house again and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you (eiréné humin)!' " (John 20:21, 26)

  "Jesus said, 'Do not hold onto me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father (anabainó pros ton patera mou) and your Father, to my God and your God.' " (John 20:17).

  Note also that Raphael tells Tobit and Tobias: "You thought you saw me eating, but that was appearance (horasis) and no more" (Tobit 12:19). This overtly docetic characterization of angelophany contrasts with Luke 24:41-43: "[Jesus said:] 'Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, 'Do you have anything here to eat?' They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence." Another parallel with Jesus is the statement: "When I was with you (humón élthon), my presence was not by any decision of mine but by the will of God (thelései tou theou)" (Tobit 12:18). Compare John 6:38: "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me (theléma tou pempsantos me)." Cf. also "I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true... I have not come (elélutha) on my own, but he sent me (ekeinos me apesteilen)" (John 7:28, 8:42; cf. John 4:34, 14:24, 15:21). The repeated references to God as "he who sent me" (with apesteilen in John 8:42) also closely recalls Tobit 12:20: "I am about to return to the one who sent me (aposteilanta me)". Finally, the command to "write down all that has happened" in Tobit 12:20, as the ending to the angelophany, also parallels the statement in John 20:30-31 which ends the original gospel (Tobit: grapsate ... biblion; John: gegrammena ... biblio). The concluding words to Matthew, "I am with you (egó meth humón) all the days until the end of the age (pasas tas hémeras heós tés sunteleias tou aiónos, 28:20)", are also similar to what the angel Raphael tells Tobit and Tobias: "When I was with you (humón élthon), my presence was not by any decision of mine, but by the will of God; it is he whom you must bless throughout all the days of the age (ton aióna pasas tas hémeras)" (Tobit 12:18).

  The cumulative evidence would suggest some use of the apocryphal book of Tobit in the resurrection stories and throughout John. This should not be unusual considering the use of Tobit among the apostolic fathers. Thus 2 Clement 16:4 quotes Tobit 12:8-9 ("Prayer arising from a good conscience delivers one from death... charitable giving relieves the burden of sin") and the same text is also quoted in Polycarp, Philippians 10:2 which combines it with an allusion to Tobit 4:10.
• 

  Leolaia

  "The stories about Jesus' resurrection appearances are ambiguous as to the form of the risen Christ and have much in common which biblical accounts of angelophanies. He appears to the Emmaus disciples out of nowhere, remains unknown to them, and disappears as soon as his presence is recognized in a eucharistic action (24:13-32). In the commissioning story of Luke 24, the protests about his corporeality notwithstanding, he is first mistaken for an angel or ghost (v. 37). The parallel with John 20:19-29 has the same tension: although he is recognized as the Crucified One, he has materialized through closed doors. In the empty tomb story in John 20:11-18, Mary mistakes Jesus for a gardner. The persistent motifs of sudden appearances and disappearance and of lack of recognition or mistaken identity run like a thread through the stories and suggest that, despite their juxtaposition to accounts of the empty tomb and despite the emphasis on corporeality in some of them, these stories are crystallizations of traditions in which the form of the risen Christ was much more ambiguous. The commissioning story in Matt. 28:16-20, where the exalted Christ has the authority of the exalted son of man, the Lukan accounts about the christophany on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:1-9; 22:3-11; 26:10-19), Paul's own statements and hints about the glorified Christ (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8, 49; 2 Cor 4:6; Phil 3:20-21), and the commissioning christophany in Revelation 1-2 all suggest that the commissioning stories in Luke 24 and John 20 and 21 stem from a common tradition that assumes and implies that the Risen One was perceived as a divine being with authority to call apostles, just as the Deity did in the case of the biblical prophets....Death and exaltation are two sides of the same coin in the Johannine discourses, as we have seen, and there is a Jewish model for this idea. However, this idea is complicated by the Gospel's christology, which is closely paralleled by the descent and ascent of Raphael in the book of Tobit...

  The Epistle to the Hebrews has it both ways. The author explicitly asserts the incarnation and real suffering and death of the wisdom figure, suggesting at least some opposition to some sort of docetic, angelic christology (4:14-15; 5:7-10). At the same time, he speaks of death and exaltation with no explicit reference to resurrection (1:3; 2:9; 12:2, etc.).

  New Testament formulations about the great resurrection also vary, and few if any posit a straightforward resuscitation of dead bodies. The texts are sketchy, but ultimate glorification is a common motif. In Mark 12:18-27 the result of the resurrection is the Jewish notion of angel-like existence (cf. Dan 12:3; 1 En. 104:2-4; 2 Baruch 49-51). For Paul in 1 Cor 15:48-50 and Phil 3:21, the model of glory is the glorified Christ. New Testament idea about an intermediate state are not consistent. As already noted, the Gospel of Luke is clear. In Rev. 6:9-11 the souls of the martyrs weep beneath the altar. In 1 Thess 4:13-17 Paul envisions a resurrection that will bring up the dead to meet the descending Lord, while in Phil 1:21-24 he anticipates that in death he will be 'with the Lord' " (George W. E. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins, 2003, pp. 142-143).

  A great book, highly recommended.